On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Burkhard Linke <Burkhard.Linke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > > On 08/24/2016 10:22 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote: >> >> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Burkhard Linke >> <Burkhard.Linke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> the Firefly and Hammer releases did not support transparent usage of >>> cache >>> tiering in CephFS. The cache tier itself had to be specified as data >>> pool, >>> thus preventing on-the-fly addition and removal of cache tiers. >>> >>> Does the same restriction also apply to Jewel? I would like to add a >>> cache >>> tier to an existing data pool. >> >> This got cleaned up a lot but is still a bit weird since you *can't* >> use a bare EC pool on Ceph. I think right now you'll find that you can >> add an EC pool to the CephFS data pools if it has a cache pool, but >> doing so will prevent removing the cache pool. > > EC pools have been a problem in Firefly and Hammer, too. We removed them > from our CephFS setup in the wake of the cache tiering error in Hammer. > > Does cache tiering work as expected with replicated pools? We use kernel > based CephFS clients running kernel 4.6.6 on almost all machines. I think so? I'm not entirely clear on what you mean and I don't work with cache tier pools any more. -Greg _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |